Haggard Update

Those of you who follow this site know that I have blogged about Haggard before. I find the whole situation so interesting. Recently, Haggard was featured in an HBO special. I have seen several interviews with him in the past couple of weeks, including the one below. My take is that he actually seems to be getting perspective and maybe healing. I'm curious to know what you, my loyal readers think.

Anti Christ

Hey, this is from Ken Schenck. I said this during my Revelation series, but this guy says it MUCH better than me! (And he was my Greek professor in seminary, so he also says it with more authority as well.)

I have NO IDEA why I'm posting this, I just thought it was interesting.

____________________________________________

The Anti-Christ

There's so much talk of Obama being the Antichrist, that I thought I might throw a couple posts that direction.

Some background:

First, this whole idea of an Antichrist comes directly from a set of pre-modern interpretations of several different passages ingeniously woven together in a pre-modern way. By pre-modern, I mean an unreflective reading that is unaware of the difference between how the text is being read and what the text originally meant.

The whole Darby-Hal Lindsey-Tim LaHaye end times scenario weaves together Scriptures from Daniel, Ezekiel, Mark 13/Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2, 1 John, and Revelation ingeniously without

1. ... recognizing that these are different books addressing different situations that use words differently from each other and refer to different times...

2. ... or that these books to a large extent were not addressing today but their own times and situations. We want to leave open the door that some of their material might be addressing today. But our default expectation is that they were actually relevant to the people for whom they were actually written.

I want to reiterate my hermeneutic. To varying degrees, the NT generally does not read the OT in context. Paul can take the story of Sarah and Hagar and say that Sarah allegorically represents the Jerusalem above and Hagar the earthly Jerusalem--when this story is located some 800 years before Jerusalem even existed as an Israelite city. Matthew can see Jesus growing up in Nazareth as a prophetic triangulation of Scriptures like "Samson will be called a Nazirite" and "A branch [nazir] will come from the stump of Jesse."

In short, a Christian hermeneutic should probably allow for strange Spiritual "reader-response" variations like LaHaye. Maybe L & Friends are right and prophetically inspired. At the same time, what I want to point out in this post and a couple more is that 1) their interpretation is vastly unaware of what these texts originally meant and 2) their interpretation is not the long standing interpretation of Christendom. For my three-fold understanding of Christian hermeneutics, see this post.

The title "Antichrist"
This morning I want to start by pointing out that there is nowhere in the Bible where a figure is called the Antichrist. The word comes from 1 John (2:18, 22; 4:3). In 1 John, the term does not refer to a solitary figure who is coming at the end of time:

2:18: "Children, it is the last hour, and even as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come."

2:22: "Who is the liar if not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son."

4:3: "And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus [is the Christ] is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, that you have heard is coming and is already now in the world."

The first rule of contextual (original meaning) interpretation is not to see more meaning in a verse than its original context requires. This distinguishes it from "theological interpretation" where one brings a Christian (reader-response) context to bear on the words beyond the original contexts. In this case, neither approach yields the Darbian interpretation.

So we should immediately recognize that 1 John has no teaching about a single figure in the end times who will set himself up in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem as God during a seven year tribulation. It is legitimate to ask whether the "you have heard" element of this passage maps to 2 Thessalonians 2's "man of lawlessness" or Revelation 13 and 17's "beast." But from the standpoint of contextual interpretation, we cannot just assume they are all the same figure.

So what do we notice about these passages in 1 John?

1. The likely antichrists of 1 John have to do with its situation, which we can sketch from comments scattered throughout this homily of sorts. The church in question has undergone a split in the late first century AD. A group of early Gnostics, probably Docetists (who believed Jesus only seemed to be human) have left the church. The references to antichrists more than likely refer directly to them, to people who have been dead for 1900 years.

2. The first reference, "antichrist is coming" does not have the word "the" in front, despite the as usual horribly inadequate NIV. "You have heard that antichrist is coming." The reference is not to one individual but to a type of individual, as the next sentence indicates, "Many antichrists have come."

3. Who is such an antichrist: "the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ." It would thus seem that there are a lot of antichrists in the world today. 1 John knows nothing, though, about a single Antichrist.

So ironically, the only place where the actual word "Antichrist" is used in the Bible has nothing to do with any solitary end times figure.

I might add in closing today as well that the "last hour" John is talking about was 1900 years ago. Of course a last hour can last 2000 years. In which case there have been many antichrists these last few minutes.

wow

Does this scare anyone else?

Stay at home dads and marriage

So....

I have some opinions on this, but I'm going to give you all an opportunity to chime in if you want.

Are you for us or against us?

I am within seconds of perhaps the biggest rant I have ever done on this blog. But I have to pick up my daughter, so fortunately, I will show restraint. You are welcomed to rant for me.... or perhaps you think this prayer is good?

Must.... show... restraint....

MUST....SHOW.... RESTRAINT

I feel a rant coming on. But I don't have time to rant. But this is... er... mppp.... [must.....show.... restraint!]... one of the reasons.... [holds back rant]

SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!

[New Link] Pray for...

Okay, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, I'm curious to know what you think of this:



Do you think this honors God?

Do you really think that God is on the side of one political candidate because of a single issue?

Now, I'm not sure you can talk about Jesus and not be "political," but as a pastor, I strive to be non-partisan -- in that I'm an equal-opportunity offender.

But as a blogger, I just going to say this: This sickens me beyond belief.

Now, feel free to disagree. We can still be friends. Really.

But I think this is arrogant, manipulative... I could go on but I'm going to show restraint. To be clear, I'm pro life. I think abortion is a big issue... and Christians need to wrestle with it. (Of course, we also need to wrestle with the place of law in changing the human heart, and why most pro-life people are only pro-life for unborn babies, but that is a different post.) Okay, I'm not going to rant.

I WILL say that some friends of mine (and fellow Centralites) just gave me one of the great moments in blogging history. Surf on over and check out their response to this clip.

The "Warren Debates"

I find this interesting on a number of levels; the first being that the candidates actually are doing it. I like Warren. And I think he did a good job with this interview (although he dodged some questions, I'm not sure I would have not tried to do the same thing).

Taming the text and being "relevant"

This is an excerpt from an article written by Rob Bell and printed in the book, "The Younger Evangelicals" by Robert E. Webber.

I know a lot of people don't like Rob. But it is stuff like this that keeps me reading him.
_______________________________________________

"...We actually believe that the biblical text is a living and breathing Word. For the first year or so of our existence as a church, I preached through the Book of Leviticus, verse by verse.

Yes that’s right.
Menstrual blood, goat sacrifice, and no shell fish, please.
Every verse.

Now if you at this moment are smiling or laughing or thinking that is crazy, what have you just said about the biblical text? Do you have a canon with a canon? Either you believe that God speaks through his entire text, or you stick within the evangelically approved texts that are tamed down enough for the local congregation.

We have no desire to tame the text. We want to let it out of its cage and we want to see it prowl around our lives, devouring us and spitting out the bones. We don’t want to be detached, methodical scientists who stand over the subject and apply the proper rules, methods, and procedures so that we can achieve favorable results. The modern impulse is always to reduce it to simple principles and clever maxims. To continually insist that with enough work, it will all make sense and line up.

Life doesn’t always line up.

We love the Scriptures and we want them to sweep us off our feet.

In the new world, much of what is currently considered preaching and study will be rendered totally irrelevant. The Bible is not a nice book. It is not a clean book. It is not a guide to proper behavior. It does not even seem to care whether it is “relevant” or not.

I have asked the congregation to please never tell me that my message was “nice”.

The Bible is a revolutionary manifesto that could get you killed in many parts of the world. It is living, it is breathing, and it demands that we surrender to it unconditionally so that it can transform us."

Okay, I lied

I know I said I was done with this guy but I really can't pass this one up. Sarah, you have to hold out until the end... as he gives sanctified nutritional advice in the midst of his diatribe against "liberal churches."

Serena and Maria... NO.

Don't even go there...

I'm not doing it.

"The Envelope Please..."

Well, it turns out that Paul is a liberal.

Okay, a "progressive."

I scored a 66 one time and a 68 another (After reflection, I changed my answer to a question). It seems that Andrew wins the lunch. For the record, I really wanted to give it to SJW because her husband is a good kisser AND she was the first one gutsy enough to guess my score-- and was pretty darn close. But she did give a range, which felt like a copout... and Andrew guessed right between my two scores. So Andrew it is. (But I will invite SJW, her husband and daughter over for dinner as a constellation prize when we all stop being sick. And Beth gets honorable mention for the line, "I smell chicken." She ought to get something for that!)

I was honestly surprised about falling in the "progressive" camp. I'm still not sure I would define myself that way, or, that if held up to a someone who claims to be progressive, I wouldn't appear like a conservative. I guess it is all relative. Looking at the questions, there is a REALLY big difference between someone who scores a 68 verses a 90. Huge. But I did score higher than a couple of my colleagues who I thought much more liberal than me... which I found interesting.

This has been my story for a couple of years now. I often feel like a man without a theological home. The conservatives don't want me because I'm too liberal. And the liberals don't want me because I'm too conservative. I find myself standing with people in both camps, and sometimes repulsed by both camps. And to be honest, I often feel isolated among my colleagues who fit in these nice, neat little boxes.

On top of that, for some reason anymore, I really resent being labeled. I don't like to be put in boxes.

I spoke at an event in the fall, and when I went to register, I told them I was one of the speakers. They said, "Okay, are you conservative or liberal?" And I said... "yes."

[long pause]

[strange look]

[awkward pause as she waits for me to say more]

I mean, it does depend on what you are asking, right? I'm liberal in my use of chocolate, pizza toppings and love for my wife. I'm conservative in my use of mayo, my dress and anything having to do with Yanni. We actually got into a little fight because I refused to be put into a box so that they could put me into a discussion group.

But as much as I don't like to be labeled, I honestly think I have a particular fear of being labeled "liberal." Largely because all my life I have been taught that "liberal" is a theological cuss word.

Theological Liberals don't love or believe in Jesus.

Liberals don't believe in the bible. Liberals are "them."

But... see, here is the thing: I DO love Jesus and I DO believe in the bible... maybe more now than ever. I think I have a MUCH higher reverence for the bible than many of my more conservative colleagues. I just don't use the same words to describe it as I used to use.

My journey since seminary has been trying to reconcile what I read in the bible with...well...uh... what I read in the bible. I mean, we are all okay with reading James. Phillipians makes us generally feel really good. But then there are those tricky things. The "problem passages."

As Scot said, I'm fascinated "with the portions of the Bible we don't tend to read, passages like the story of Jephthah. Or how God was on the verge of killing Moses for not circumcising his son, and his wife stepped in, did what needed to be done, and tossed the foreskin at Moses' feet, and God let him alone."

"I have become fascinated with what goes on in our heads and our minds and our traditions (and the latter is far more significant than many of us recognize) in making decisions like this. What decisions? Which passages not to read as normative. The passages we tend not to read at all."

For the record, I still don't think I'm in the "theological liberal" camp. I know theological liberals, and I'm not one of them. I feel very comfortable in the moderate camp. In fact, in many ways I'm still a theological conservative.

But why does the Bride of Jesus Christ have so much fear? Why are we so afraid of having the wrong answers? And does this fear say something more about our faith, than which theological box we are stuffed into?

P.S.

I am thinking of going through some of the questions and talking about why I answered the way I did. If I get enough encouragement, I may do that. But I think I have said what I wanted to say.

Please say it isn't so

Warning: the following clip is not a joke. This is part of an actual message, given to an actual church, by an actual pastor (although that last point is debatable).

I have so many reactions to this, I can't begin to tell you.

I am soooo temped to use this at Central. Maybe sjw can work this into our new policy?



BTW, the number 5 equals death? "You know, Genesis 5:5, Acts 5:5."

Oh my.

New Doctrinal Statement for Central

To heck with the Apolstles Creed! Down with vision statments! I have discovered the PERFECT doctrinal statment for Central!

"As you can see, we are truly as King James Only as one can be!"

Oh my. But it gets better! Other quotes:

"I don't believe nor will I preach supporting the Great Commission."

...

"We don't preach Jesus' teachings unless they are through Paul."

...

"As an added bonus, please note that I am a former music teacher and have written and preached many sermons on the crumbling of music in our churches today. We sing the old hymns - we will sing no modern wishy washy cartoon oriented fableistic spiritual songs and will sing a few Psalms properly, as we learn of them.

In fact, I doubt you can talk me into having your family sing or have you or your wife sing or play any specials. I would be glad to tell all the particulars to that statement when you are here, but suffice it to say, if you are bringing along a music ministry with you, you probably won't be able to present it here - ESPECIALLY if you are from the South, North, East or Western part of this country. It seems that God's praises are being polluted in all parts of our country today."

...

"We love guns - we use guns - we shoot guns - we carry guns - the pulpit has a loaded one all ready for post-911 use. If that bothers you, get one and try it - you may like it. We even have a few "Preach-n-Shoots" throughout the year - you are welcome to inquire about them. A full day of preaching, shooting, eating and fellowship - can it get any better than that? Well, yes it can, but for now, this works for us!"

...

Okay, this HAS to be a joke, right?

Yea, I'm a bum

Yea, I know I haven't been posting much. I will try and work on that. But I have been reading all of YOUR posts! (For you bloggers out there).

Nothing right now, but if you don't mind... surf over here. Read and comment. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Worth seeing with some friends...

So I just watched "Jesus Camp" with some friends and we talked about it afterward. The movie was thought provoking and is good to process, which is why you should watch it with people (this is coming from a verbal processor).

It seems that the movie is an attempt to expose a right-wing political agenda...and this agenda is frowned upon. Now, in many ways, I agree with this. I don't think the focus of the church in the US is to see that the US should be a "Christian Nation." But I found myself saying, "Yea...but..." a lot during this movie.

The "evangelical church"* was criticized as having an agenda and raising their kids (indoctrinating their kids) to embrace certain beliefs. Now, in some cases (many cases?) I didn't embrace those beliefs either... but don't they have the right to do that?

Here is my thing: everyone has an agenda (the Right, the Left, Christians, Muslims, Atheist, and pro-wrestling fans). Let's just put that on the table. To say that the "evangelical church"* has a political agenda and so BEWARE (insert stupid arguments of separation of church and state) or that it has a societal agenda (insert stupid arguments of indoctrination) is.. in my humble opinion... well... stupid.

This is from a review I read on the link above:

"This film made my hair stand on end and I came away from it thinking that the adults in it ought to be indicted for child abuse. These children are being intellectually immobilized in the name of goodness and purity. Do they really think they are superior to other young religious zealots who study nothing but their holy book but who are not Christians? It seems that children ought to be exposed to all the wonders of the world instead of being told that their job is to point out the errors of others. Children are highly impressionable and mostly believe what adults tell them. We can only hope that some of these children get some exposure to reality later which will help them live productive and caring lives as people who can accept the world's diversity. The prospects are not good."

Okay... am I the only one who thinks this is bad logic? I know that is politically incorrect to point that out... but I feel it is. "Children are highly impressionable and mostly believe what adults tell them [like, for example, this author]. We can only hope that some of these children get some exposure to reality [as defined by this author] later which will help them live productive and caring lives [as defined by this author] as people who can accept the world's diversity [this author's agenda]."

So there is the agenda... accepting diversity. And if this author had his or her way, children would be "indoctrinated" to accept diversity. Now, this is not a bad thing. I'm pretty sure we don't want kids to think that white supremacy is a good thing, etc... but let's just call it what it is... an agenda.

And I'm not sure I buy the idea that kids (or any people) "make up their minds for themselves." We all "make up our minds" based on the input we get. (Now, I'm hoping that God plays a role in some of this)... but I'm not sure the role of parents is to keep their kid's minds as blank of a slate as possible so that someone else can write their agenda on it, because everyone has an agenda.

I don't agree with a lot of what these kids were taught. I don't agree with some of the way they were taught it. But I can't criticize parents for trying to raise their kids to embrace the values they, themselves hold.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: Opinions expressed on this post are not necessarily the final opinions of this author. This is a verbal (keyboard) process...therefore I reserve the right to change my mind.


* What the producers of this show labeled the "evangelical church" I would label the "charismatic/fundamental church." Evangelicals embrace a much wider view than this movie (although they may be seen as a subset.)